Croatia Rediviva is a work by Pavao Ritter Vitezović published in 1700. Although the main intent of Vitezović was to prove that the borders of Croatia were originally considerably larger, it grew into a political program based on a separate pan-South Slavic identity, related to the rebirth of the Croatian national idea, called the Illyrian movement. It is Vitezović's best known historiographical work, which had an immense influence on the later Illyrian movement.
Background
Following the 1699 treaty of Karlowitz, a commission was set up led by Luigi Ferdinando Marsili meant to establish the borders between the Ottoman Empire and the territories of the Habsburg Monarchy. Pavao Ritter Vitezović became part of this commission in various roles to fulfill, which subsequently was the main cause and inspiration for writing this work. Its precursor was a memorandum Vitezović presented to Marsili, as a protest to this treaty.
Publication history
The work was published by Vitezović in Zagreb, and there are currently only three copies preserved. One originated from the inheritance of Marsili at Bologna, others are kept in the Croatian State Archives.
Description
The work is actually a brochure numbering only 32 pages. It was intended as a draft for a much larger work which the author never managed to realize. It begins with a dedication to Emperor Leopold, naming him, among other, "king of all Croatia", as a reflection of political ambitions outlined in this book. This is followed by an introductory in verseMonitio ad Prodromum, where goals and ideas of the work are laid out. In the same poem, consisting of 9 couplets, he encourages the reader to send him more material such as sources and coats of arms. The whole introductory part is meticulously structured, thoroughly stylized, and using rhetorical devices such as puns, litotes, homeoteleuton, etc. In Croatia Rediviva, Vitezović sets out to first establish the origin of the Croat name, and then the extent of boundaries of Croatia, trying to reconcile contradictions in various sources ranging from chronicles such as Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja to historians Mavro Orbini and Johannes Lucius. Using White Croatia, White Croats and the Legend of Lech, Czech and Rus as basis, Vitezović declared all Western and Eastern Slavs as Croats. The second part is a polemic against those who view Croats as different to Slavs and Illyrians. He maintains Slavs and Croats are synonyms, holding the term "Illyrian" as merely a Greek and Latin name for Slavs. By denouncing Lucius as a Venetian apologist, he negates Venetian claim to Dalmatia. Finishing the book with the newly attained belief that all Slavs held the Croat name, he views all the Slavic lands as being divided in two main parts: Northern Croatia and Southern Croatia, the latter being further divided into Red Croatia and White Croatia. White Croatia he divided in four regions:
According to historian Ivo Banac, Vitezović treated his "pan-Croatianism" both as a historical construct and as a political programme, originating as an outrage against the centuries long fragmentation of Croatian lands and the whole Slavic south. The work is also a polemic against Venetian territorial pretensions and in favor of legitimising Habsburg expansionism. However, Vitezović did not treat his Greater Croatia as a unified whole, acknowledging different customs, names and emblems of territories included. Although, he maintained these were not important for the common nationhood and lineage of the Croats. Banac also argued against treating this work as a case of national exclusivism, stating that this work also influenced the national movement of the Serbs and Bulgarians. Ferdo Šišić once regarded the work as a "Bible of Croat national policy in the 19th century", inspiring such individuals as Ljudevit Gaj, Eugen Kvaternik and Ante Starčević. Vitezović anticipated the Romanticist movement with his treatment of "nationhood". He speculated on the origin of the Croats, which is one of the main elements of national thought, ultimately becoming a precursor to modern ideologue. He manipulated and misrepresented sources, perhaps deliberately, in order to support his own political intention in the book. Zrinka Perković regards the work as exceptionally important, despite its short length and span. She describes the work as a Utopian vision of a typical absolutist state.
